Evaluation of Get Healthy at Work, a state-wide workplace health promotion program in Australia
Evaluation of Get Healthy at Work, a state-wide workplace health promotion program in Australia
复制标题
DOI：
10.1186/s12889-019-6493-y
复制
发表时间：
2019-02-13
影响因子：
4.5
通讯作者：
Grunseit, Anne
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Crane, Melanie;Bohn-Goldbaum, Erika;Grunseit, Anne
背景资料：工作场所健康计划（WHP）可能会改善成人健康，但很少有证据表明存在多层次的WHP实施规模，因此计划实施因素和WHP结果之间的关系知之甚少。这项研究评估获得健康的工作（GHaW），全州政府资助的WHP在Australia.Methods：混合方法设计包括一个纵向准实验调查的企业注册GHaW和一个比较组的企业调查超过12个月的时间。半结构化的访谈和焦点小组的关键联系人和选定的干预组业务和服务提供商的程序进行评估程序的采用和adaptation.Results：积极的业务层面的变化，在工作场所的文化，随着时间的推移GHaW企业与对照组相比。多水平回归模型显示，员工普遍健康（p = 0.045 timeXgroup效应）和工作场所促进健康行为（p = 0.004 timeXgroup效应）的看法显着改善，而对照组报告没有变化的工作文化的看法。没有观察到对工作生产率的看法发生变化;然而，在评估期间，只有三分之一登记参加该方案的企业采用了GHaW。定性结果揭示了一些因素有助于程序采用：这取决于程序交付（例如，物流，技术和沟通渠道），该计划的设计特点，和组织因素（主要是业务规模和以前的经验WHPs）。结论：评估计划因素是重要的，以提高计划的交付和吸收，并确保更大的可扩展性。GHaW有可能改善工作场所的健康文化，这可能导致更好的健康促进工作环境。这些结果意味着，政府可以发挥核心作用，使优先事项和激励工作场所的健康促进。
Background: Workplace health programs (WHPs) may improve adult health but very little evidence exists on multi-level WHPs implemented at-scale and so the relationship between program implementation factors and outcomes of WHPs are poorly understood. This study evaluated Get Healthy at Work (GHaW), a state-wide government-funded WHP in Australia.Methods: A mixed-method design included a longitudinal quasi-experimental survey of businesses registered with GHaW and a comparison group of businesses surveyed over a 12-month period. Semi-structured interviews and focus groups with key contacts and employees of selected intervention group businesses and the service providers of the program were conducted to assess program adoption and adaptation.Results: Positive business-level changes in workplace culture were observed over time among GHaW businesses compared with the control group. Multilevel regression modelling revealed perceptions that employees were generally healthy (p = 0.045 timeXgroup effect) and that the workplace promoted healthy behaviours (p = 0.004 timeXgroup effect) improved significantly while the control group reported no change in work culture perceptions. Changes in perceptions about work productivity were not observed; however only one third of businesses registered for the program had adopted GHaW during the evaluation period. Qualitative results revealed a number of factors contributing to program adoption: which depended on program delivery (e.g., logistics, technology and communication channels), design features of the program, and organisational factors (primarily business size and previous experience of WHPs).Conclusions: Evaluation of program factors is important to improve program delivery and uptake and to ensure greater scalability. GHaW has the potential to improve workplace health culture, which may lead to better health promoting work environments. These results imply that government can play a central role in enabling prioritisation and incentivising health promotion in the workplace.